I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonising an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.

As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely.

So I guess you’ll be wondering—what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.

More:

Quote:

To feed a growing world population (with an exploding middle class demanding more and better-quality food), we must take advantage of all the technology available to us, including GMOs. To insist on “natural” agriculture and livestock is to doom people to starvation, and there’s no logical reason to prefer the old ways, either. Moreover, the reason why big companies dominate the industry is that anti-GMO activists and policymakers have made it too difficult for small startups to enter the field.

Let me requote his assertion that Monsanto's domination of the GMO market is the fault of the anti-GMO movement:

Quote:

Moreover, the reason why big companies dominate the industry is that anti-GMO activists and policymakers have made it too difficult for small startups to enter the field.

Monsanto wouldn't be as big as it was if there was competition; there's no competition because there's basically no market for any other GMO stuff because everyone has decided that GMO foods are the worst thing ever.

Yeah, I read that. It makes sense to me, sorta, but the terrible business practices of Monsanto can't be blamed on anti-gmo activitists. If Monsanto somehow had good and fair business practices, people's opinions of GMO food might not be so negative.

And I get that the reason they were able to get so evil is because of lack of competition, but that doesn't really explain why they're so evil, just why it was so easy for them to get that way.

_________________I am not a troll. I am TELLING YOU THE ******GOD'S TRUTH****** AND YOU JUST DON'T WANT THE HEAR IT DO YOU?

Yeah, I read that. It makes sense to me, sorta, but the terrible business practices of Monsanto can't be blamed on anti-gmo activitists. If Monsanto somehow had good and fair business practices, people's opinions of GMO food might not be so negative.

And I get that the reason they were able to get so evil is because of lack of competition, but that doesn't really explain why they're so evil, just why it was so easy for them to get that way.

Most of the activism I see is more focused on GMO's themselves than on the business practices of Monsanto. There is an implication made that they are inherently unhealthy or even dangerous.

_________________A whole lot of access and privilege goes into being sanctimonious pricks J-DubDessert is currently a big bowl of sanctimonious, passive aggressive vegan enduced boak. FezzaYou people are way less funny than Pandacookie. Sucks to be you.-interrobang?!

We all have to do what we feel is best for ourselves. I personally feel that tinkering with the genetic make up of things can lead to unexpected and harmful issues down the road. Especially when there are not long term, unbiased studies on the human body. Just my humble opinion.

A lot less is known about the "tinkering" that is done when plants are selectively bred. In that case, you can pick up genes that were not intended or acquire new mutations, but I don't see anyone fussing over the safety of that supposedly "natural" process. When genetic engineering methods are applied, single genes are changed with much more precision, and safety testing must be done before the food is sold.

I understand the fear that comes with anything new and unknown, but at some point we have to get over our emotional reponse and look at the evidence.

Look at what evidence? This food is at market with virtually no testing to see if it is safe for consumption or not. Even if Monsanto had done extensive testing, I wouldn't trust a corporation with that history to release the results (see big tobacco, etc).

Our food security relies in crop diversity, not placing all eggs in the basket of one type of rice, etc.

The US has the ability to feed the world even without GMOs. But we pay farmers to not grow food which is probably the bigger evil.

Amen to this! I am also a firm believer that food as nature intended it i.e. not GENETICALLY modified which is different they hybridization is the best for our bodies.

Do not ever eat Haas avocados, named for the farmer who created them. They are not a naturally occurring variety. We do lots of things to crops that is not part of what would happen without our tinkering. It's sort of strange to single this one thing out. Unless there is real evidence for harm... The only thing I've ever read about is what lycophyte mentioned.

_________________A whole lot of access and privilege goes into being sanctimonious pricks J-DubDessert is currently a big bowl of sanctimonious, passive aggressive vegan enduced boak. FezzaYou people are way less funny than Pandacookie. Sucks to be you.-interrobang?!

Do not ever eat Haas avocados, named for the farmer who created them. They are not a naturally occurring variety. We do lots of things to crops that is not part of what would happen without our tinkering.

Yep, not to mention most of the foods we eat today bear very little resemblance to the 'naturally occurring' wild plants they were bred from over thousands of years. We have been meddling with genetics for a long, long time.

Our food security relies in crop diversity, not placing all eggs in the basket of one type of rice, etc.

"GMO" is not mutually exclusive to "diverse"!

how often do you see non-orange carrots at your local grocer? a few have them, but even the organic non-GMO produce is fairly ordinary in terms of diversity. even conservatively estimating, I see at least 95% orange, and occasionally white/purple..and I shop mostly at local co-ops or organic grocers.

there are reasons for some of it: fitness for conditions, reduced yield, market expectation, etc. but what if GMO allowed less hardy species to thrive, and thus opened the door for greater crop diversity?

like everything: there are both responsible and irresponsible ways of using technology. writing off an entire branch of technology because of one reckless use-case is an awful approach.